Yeah, I had a feeling that you thought the apostrophe S meant it was singular possessive and that the narrative cane from Wilson and belongs only to Wilson. There again is the problem with not understanding the definitions of words and in not understanding what you read. You have an amazing ability to read something (and I would imagine hear, as well) and comprehend what you want or need to be there, rather than comprehend what is actually said.
I wonder where you think Ferguson's narrative came from.
While that is indeed a correct usage of narrative in a sentence, it does not accurately describe Wilson's narrative, nor where it was first came into the public's information of the incident.
The definition of narrative, is far more than
story, account. It is a story (not
THE story, but
A story) or account of events, experiences, or the like, whether true or fictitious.
First, questioning whether or not I prefer the raw truth, and then presenting an opinion as a refutation of my sincerity of that preference, is not only yet another logical fallacy, it's just out-of-left-field retarded. My opinion was concluded based on his responses in his own words. There are few absolutes in anything, including his tendency look for ways to blame the dead guy when the dead guy is black and the one that killed him is a white cop. Not in all cases, no, but if it can be worked out to view it that way, that's where tends to go. He will dismiss the notion that white cops are generally afraid of black people, especially if they're big and black, and that white cops can and do often accelerate a situation to a dangerous one, including up to the point where the cop fears for his life, simply because that fear manifests itself in the cop misinterpreting every word, every movement, every facial expression as a threat. Suddenly the cop finds himself afraid for his life, when if he'd have just used rational judgment instead of letting irrational fear rule his actions and reactions, it never would have gotten to that point.
All the times that he kept mentioning that Brown was big, 6'4" big, and scary, he never once mentioned that Wilson is also big, 6'4" big, and carried a gun scary. Brown carried more weight, true enough, but Wilson and everyone else knows full well how that gun can be the great equalizer. What was that phrase? Oh, yeah, "f
actually incorrect by omission." What a hoot.
No, his opinions of the other two cases did not go over my head. He dismissed them himself when he chose to focus on the one paragraph in the article about Ferguson, because it's a case he feels strongly about, and use that to discredit the entire article.
Here again, you aren't understanding what you read. Here's the entire sentence.
"Ten days ago, despite multiple eyewitness accounts and his own face contradicting Wilson's narrative of events, a grand jury declined to indict Wilson."
If that paragraph or that sentence was referencing Wilson's narrative to the grand jury, it would not have been worded that way. For one, grand jury testimony is not characterized as narrative, it is testimony under oath. Narrative can be true or not, but testimony under oath is presumed to be true.
Second, if that sentence was meant to reference Wilson's telling of events to the grand jury, then "Wilson's" would have been replaced with "his" because the pronoun "his" is defined at the end of the sentence with "Wilson." Otherwise, "his" is defined by "Wilson" at the end of the sentence, and "Wilson's" is referencing something other than either of those two things and the sentence makes no sense without a defined reference.
Third, as you have previously noted, Wilson's testimony to the grand jury matched that of the pictures of Wilson's face taken after the incident. But the face contradicted something, and it wasn't the testimony before the grand jury or the pictures. What was it, then? It contradicted "Wilson's narrative," or, yes, the "Wilson narrative," or simply the "narrative regarding Wilson's face and injuries." That's the only thing it could contradict. So it has to be something other than the pictures or his grand jury testimony, which means "Wilson's narrative" cannot be his testimony to the grand jury, it must be referring to something else.
The way that sentence breaks down into its constituent ideas is to remove the prepositional phrase, reposition by itself as its own idea, so that it becomes...
"Ten days ago a grand jury declined to indict Wilson. They did so despite multiple eyewitness accounts contradicting Wilson's narrative of the events, and despite Wilson's his own face contradicting Wilson's narrative of events."
When you do that it's pretty easy to see that there is a distinct difference between the singular possessive of Wilson's own face, and the possessive of the narrative that refers to Wilson, not necessarily
by or
from Wilson, but merely the narrative of Wilson. It's no different than Captain Kirk's narrative, which is the narrative about Captain Kirk, but we didn't get it from Captain Kirk himself, we got it from Gene Roddenberry.
I don't know why I even bother. By the time you've gotten to this sentence, you will have either dismissed everything I've said and are already looking for a way to contradict some little iota of minutiae in there somewhere, or you will not or cannot understand it in the first place. Or both. <shrug>
Are police afraid of black men?
